Why science based on induction is flawed

Started by SatanLucy

Replies
64
Posts
65
Page
3 / 3

Conversation

#61 •••
@SatanLucy

He doesn’t know, that’s why he is asking for help.

Edit post

#62 •••
Are you certain that you are uncertain?


Ah, so you’re going down the Sye Ten Bruggencate path. Got it.


Let’s recall the statement I made that you are reacting to and criticizing:


You cannot be absolutely certain in everything”


So to answer your question; I am reasonably certain that I cannot be absolutely certain.


Why am I reasonably certain and not absolutely certain? Because my certainty is based on my own reasoning, and so because I’m an intellectually honest human being, that means I have to accept that my own reasoning can possibly be off. In fact, it’s possible that I’m actually a 102 year old titanic survivor staring at a wall believing I’m actually arguing on a debate site. There’s no way to know that this isn’t true.


The limits of science are what they are because science is practiced by human beings, so its limitations cannot exceed the limitations of those practicing it.


These are things any intelligent person understands. Not getting this puts you right at the heart of the Dunning Kruger effect; the dumbest person in the room is normally the person too dumb to see and understand the limitations of their own knowledge.

Edit post

#63 •••
@Double_R

Science has answered many questions.

Edit post

#64 •••
@Debby

Yes, individuals with IQ scores of 130 or higher (top 2%) generally possess stronger capacities for pattern recognition, fluid reasoning, and grasping complex concepts than the average population.

Edit post

#65 •••
@FLRW

That is why science invokes a leap of faith from the average population.

Edit post